Re: [PATCH v2] Teach 'git pull' about --rebase

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Lars Hjemli" <hjemli@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 11/28/07, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:
> >> > I wonder if this shouldn't be branch.<name>.pulltype or something like
> >> > that, so we can represent more than just "rebase or not." Values could
> >> > be "rebase", "merge" (the default) and maybe even "manual" to specify
> >> > that git-pull should neither merge nor rebase a particular branch even
> >> > if it matches a wildcard refspec.
> >>
> >> I am not convinced that this is a good thing... We already have
> >> branch.<name>.mergeOptions for proper merges, and I want to make clear
> >> that this is about rebase, and not about merge.
> >
> > Maybe branch.<name>.pullOptions ?
> 
> Maybe not make this part of git-pull at all?  merge and rebase have
> totally different impact on the resulting history, so perhaps a separate
> command that is a shorthand for "git fetch && git rebase" may help
> unconfuse the users.

Not so sure about that.  We already have too many commands, according to 
some outspoken people, and this would add to it.

Besides, the operation "pull" is about getting remote changes incorporated 
in your current branch.  IMHO "pull = fetch + merge" is only a technical 
detail, and we should not be bound by it too much.

Ciao,
Dscho